🟩 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Weeks of November 14 and 21, 2021)

[Ceisiwr]

deleted

[ssasny]

In a Discuss and Discover thread, Ven. Sujāto gave a very helpful way of mapping these three aspects of 'mind' on to the four noble truths.


"Viṇṇāṇa is part of the khandhas and āyatanas, and hence pertains to the first noble truth: it is suffering.
Mano is typically used in an active sense of will or volition, closely related to kamma, and hence pertains to the second noble truth, the cause of suffering.
Citta is to be developed and thus pertains to the fourth noble truth.
The cessation of all these is, of course, the third noble truth."

see here:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ci ... tions/4254

This seems to correspond well to the AN 6.55 quote given above, 'citta', that which can be developed and liberated:
Evaṁ sammā vimuttacittassa,...

we often see citta or cetas connected with vimutti.

and perhaps to the MN 20 quote, in the context of 'giving attention' or literally 'making in the mind' 'mano' (i.e. creating kamma),
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno yaṁ nimittaṁ āgamma yaṁ nimittaṁ manasikaroto...

The term 'mano' is often connected with 'doing' or 'conceiving'.

'mano' is the subject of the famous first verse of Dhammapada:
1. Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā
Manasā ce paduṭṭhena, bhāsati vā karoti vā
Tato naṁ dukkhamanveti, cakkaṁ ’va vahato padaṁ.

1. Mind is the forerunner of dhammas.
Mind is chief; and they are mind-made.
If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind,
Suffering follows as the wheel follows the hoof of the ox.


it was also pointed out we often find the term, 'manoviññāṇa', 'mind consciousness', a self-reflective awareness of 'mind', given in the context of the five aggregates.

[ToVincent]

I just see a convoluted mess.

Well, you have a scientific (left) mind. You don't see the big picture.
And when I see your disappointing and derogatory comment on this late other thread, (viewtopic.php?p=654016#p654016), I wonder if you haven't still digested this: viewtopic.php?p=567024#p567024

One thing for sure, is that this real meaning of paccaya, puts a serious dent to your endless and senseless rant about cause and condition. Doesn't it?
.
.

[Ceisiwr]

Well, you have a scientific (left) mind. You don't see the big picture.

There is no "big picture" to see here. You are simply an amateur Indologist with a penchant for indulging in highly abstract and convoluted thought, based on this account and your numerous other ones over the years (across different forums), out of which you build grand, incomprehensible and non-sensical philosophical systems. What is worse is that you do this badly via your poor understanding of how languages actually work, leading to your bizarre project of redefining nearly every single Pāli word. Redefinitions in which you always choose something that is totally at odds with how the word is normally understood, I might add. This is a fact that has been pointed out to you, over and over again, by those who are simply more learned than you. Furthermore, being a scientist doesn't mean I have a narrow vision of the world. I'm also not a leftist, if that is what the "left" comment was referring to.

One thing for sure, is that this real meaning of paccaya, puts a serious dent to your endless and senseless rant about cause and condition. Doesn't it?

No it doesn't because your re-definition of that word isn't sound, and even if it were you still have all your work ahead of you to establish the reality of causation. Good luck with that one

[ssasny]

edited below

[ssasny]

edited below

[ssasny]

I take citta to be the background of experience, Ajahn Nyanamoli’s “peripheral” if I understand him correctly. It always “exists” as is alluded to in the Satipatthana Sutta:

Thanks! I find this to be a fascinating statement and will have to contemplate it further.
I wonder if another way of saying this is that citta is more a general state of affairs, but not the 'doing' aspect of mind, or even maybe not the 'knowing' aspect of mind?

[ToVincent]

...

Yes! — I am an amateur - and glad to be one. And I have been pointed that out to you, over and over again. Amateur, from "amare"; to love, to be passionnate.
I am definitely not a professional indologist, getting paid by the establishment.
So yes, "I am at odds with how the word is normally understood", as you say — or should I say, with what the establishment wants me to "normally understand". And that includes to want to make me run around the bush with lousy definitions, to lose myself in endless pseudo-intellectual talks, from wannabe scholars, citing professional scholars — or commentaries on commentaries.

------

I wish you could show me where in the Indian literature, paṭicca (pacceti), or paccaya — both from paṭi+i have the meanings given in the different Pali dictionaries.

I have also asked you to draw a simple sketch (like dmytro and I did), to express your simple view on the Dhamma.
Note that Dmytro has admitted a flaw in his sketch.

------

I was speaking about the left brain. The brain that does not see the big picture.

There is a hierarchy of the elements of thought.
I have always thought that Descartes was a good kshatrya, a great scientist, but a poor philosopher (compared to the Belgian guy he was discussing with, in his books) — even if Bertrand Russell considered him as the father of the modern philosophy of mind (geist).
Scientists pair along well.

And I have gone way past Kantian and Hume philosophy, a long long time ago.

By the way, geist would be citta — and mano would be mere intellect.

Does intellect emerges from matter - certainly yes.
Does matter and senses and intellect, have been produced to receive and process information is the question.

Are we emergent intelligent data structures, made to process information. That is what I believe. And I am not the only one.
An information - (call it citta if you wish) - that is neither matter, nor energy — but that needs matter and energy to be processed.
And that applies in this world.
Buddha and modern science seems to tell us, that there are other worlds - with information, but no matter and energy, says modern science (MIT) — more peaceful, says Buddha.
We are stuck in the gutter of a global evolution, that is way beyond us.

Maybe this summarizes my Buddhist view on mano and citta.
A citta like a drug addict in a gutter, polluted by the sensory nature of the mano.
And that polluted citta is called ceto. And cetovimutti is just the liberation FROM the ceto.
Cetovimutti = libération OF the ceto — another wrong translation, plagiarized from translator to translator.
.
.

[SDC]

I have a streak of not having to remove any posts from the Study Group. I’d like to keep it that way.

[ToVincent]

I have a streak of not having to remove any posts from the Study Group. I’d like to keep it that way.

It shows that the mind (citta) obsesses the mind (mano), alright — and vice versa.
The suttas are full of examples of a citta, trying to lure mano into staying in what Buddha calls the lower stages.
And mano does the job alright for citta — until mano turns towards the right stuff; helping citta to be liberated from the ceto.
.
.

[ToVincent]

My notes from the previous compilation on mano: (According to PTS, manasi of manasikaroti is the locative of mano, which is intriguing given the many descriptions having to do with location and position of the mind.)

I'm poor in grammar, but manasi in Sanskrit is the locative of manas (mano). However, manasī in Sanskrit is the dual nominative of manas.
One of the pre-Buddhist meaning of √ kṛ (karoti) is "to turn towards".

The fact that manasikaroti is always involving mano and something, might explain the dual form. And the diacritic on the ī, that remains in the sandhi of the Sanskrit, might have been dropped in the Pali.

Just to say.

Yoniso manasikaroti : mano turns towards the origin.
Nimitta manasikaroti: mano turns towards the manifestation (expression).
.
.

[mjaviem]

It shows that the mind ( mano) obsesses the mind (citta), alright.
...

Could we say "attention (turned towards something) obsesses the mind"? This makes more sense to me but what is this mind, this citta?

I take citta to be the background of experience, Ajahn Nyanamoli’s “peripheral” if I understand him correctly. It always “exists” as is alluded to in the Satipatthana Sutta:

Thanks! I find this to be a fascinating statement and will have to contemplate it further.
I wonder if another way of saying this is that citta is more a general state of affairs, but not the 'doing' aspect of mind, or even maybe not the 'knowing' aspect of mind?

Facsinating how? What is this "background of experience". What does "always exists" mean? Does it mean nibbana? By "the 'knowing'" do you mean cognition (viññana)?

[ssasny]

It's probably best to let Pulga respond to this directly.

For myself, it's a fascinating way to think of the three terms often ascribed to 'mind' or 'consciousness'.
I would take 'the background of experience' to be the general, present moment state of affairs for the 5 aggregates.
Certainly not nibbāna, as it is directly related to the 5 aggregates.
By 'knowing', yes, I mean viññāṇa, 'consciousness'. [e.g. eye consciousness, mind consciousness, etc.]

[ToVincent]

Could we say "attention (turned towards something) obsesses the mind"?

This makes more sense to me but what is this mind, this citta?

Well attention is a translation coming from the inference of some translators.
There is definitely some attention involved in turning the mano towards something - but the word "attention" does not appear in the pre-Buddhist Indian literature.

--------

I am sure that Mrs. Rhys David's and her friends Woodward and Horner would agree with me that citta has to do with spiwit, siw. Um, bwavado. A touch of dewwing-do ...

Although I would not be very amenable towards the etymology of those three, in their translations that have been generally quite wrongly plagiarized since.
They were too biased, I suppose.

____________

Computational processes are abstract beings that inhabit computers.
As they evolve, processes manipulate other abstract things called data.
The evolution of a process is directed by a pattern of rules called a program.
People create programs to direct processes.
In effect, we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells.
A computational process is indeed much like a sorcerer’s idea of a spirit.
It cannot be seen or touched. It is not composed of matter at all. However, it is very real.
Hal Abelson
(Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science - MIT)


.
.

[mjaviem]

It's probably best to let Pulga respond to this directly.

For myself, it's a fascinating way to think of the three terms often ascribed to 'mind' or 'consciousness'.
I would take 'the background of experience' to be the general, present moment state of affairs for the 5 aggregates.
Certainly not nibbāna, as it is directly related to the 5 aggregates.
By 'knowing', yes, I mean viññāṇa, 'consciousness'. [e.g. eye consciousness, mind consciousness, etc.]

But what is this mind consciousness? I'm not joking but you don't have to answer. I think cognition of this "mind" is something we should be well aware of. I feel I can recognize where is my attention placed, is this mind consciousness?, or I can recognize a thought or an emotion, Is this mind consciousness? I can recognize visible forms, audible forms, etc, but I don't know if I can recognize a mind. I can recognize my body but this is only a construction made up with what I see, some sensations, etc. Does it mean the mind is something also made up from, I don't, know, certain things? Nobody has to answer I'm just saying